Erisman v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 05 February 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. DKC-17-0054
• Citation: Erisman v. Campbell, Civil Action No. DKC-17-0054 (D. Md. Feb 05, 2018)
• Parties: MATTHEW K. ERISMAN, Plaintiff v. WARDEN CASEY CAMPBELL, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

MATTHEW K. ERISMAN, Plaintiff v. WARDEN CASEY CAMPBELL, Defendant

Civil Action No. DKC-17-0054

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

February 5, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Warden Casey Campbell filed a motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.ECF No. 16.Plaintiff has responded.ECF No. 21.Upon review of the papers and exhibits filed, the court finds an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary.See Local Rule 105.6(D. Md. 2016).For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.

Background

This case was instituted upon receipt of correspondence from PlaintiffMatthew K. Erisman, an inmate held at the Dorsey Run Correctional Facility ("DRCF").ECF No. 1.Plaintiff claimed that he was denied access to the courts as his housing unit had no access to a law library.ECF No. 1, p. 1.He also "request[ed] protection from retaliation against [him] from the Administration and the Staff of the Department of Public Services and Correctional Services(DPSCS) for exercising [his]First Amendment Right to" file administrative remedies and cases in the state and federal courts.Id.Plaintiff clarified his claims by way of a court-directed amended complaint (ECF No. 6), seeking protection from retaliation, (id., p. 10), the award of 405 days work credits, the award of filing fees, damages for each month of work release missed, to be released to home detention, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.Id., p. 11.

The following facts are undisputed or construed in favor of Plaintiff, unless otherwise noted.

A.Claims regarding job assignments/work release

Plaintiff alleges that DPSCS eliminated clerk positions and second shifts, that inmates are classified as sanitation workers but DPSCS requires they do the work of clerks, and also requires multiple shifts without paying or crediting the inmates for the work performed.ECF No. 6, p. 8.Plaintiff claims that sanitation positions earn 5 work credits per month while clerical positions earn 10 credits per month.Plaintiff claims that he did work beyond his assigned sanitation position for which he was never credited.Id.

Plaintiff was transferred to DRCF on July 16, 2015.ECFNo. 16-2, ¶ 2(Campbell Decl);ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 2(Greene Decl).¹David Greene, Case Management Manager, avers that on July 28, 2015, Plaintiff was seen by Case Management for his initial assignment and it was recommended he be placed in the job bank.ECF No. 16-3 ¶ 4;see alsoECFNo. 16-3, p. 4(case management action).The recommendation was approved on August 5, 2015.Id.On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff was reassigned to a sanitation job via "Authority Move" which is described as a means to assign administratively an inmate who is on a waiting list or in a job bank into a specific job or program.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 5.Plaintiff was assigned to serve as a sanitation worker for 15 days when, on September 10, 2015, he was reassigned via "Authority Move" to "Worker-General job" so that he could be assigned to the Property Room.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 6;see alsoECFNo. 16-3, p. 5(case management action).Greene denies that Plaintiff was instructed to perform any duties not expected of inmates assigned as property workers.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 6.Plaintiff earned 5 days of work credit per month until March 4, 2016 when he was re-assigned to "Utility minimum" and began to earn work credit at the rate of 10 days per month.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶¶ 6 &10;see alsoECFNo. 16-3, p. 7(case management action).²Greene advises that inmates are not permitted to work for compensation in more than one job at a time.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 7.

Plaintiff states that on January 31, 2017, he became eligible for work release.He was offered a work release position doing the same job, in the same building he had held for 11 months, but Warden Campbell denied the request without explanation.ECF No. 6, p. 11.Plaintiff indicates that the denial of work release adversely impacted him economically, as the work release position paid $0.75 more per hour than the work as previously classified.Id.

Campbell maintains that participation in work release is a privilege and mere eligibility for work release does not imply suitability for the program.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 8(quoting Division of Correction Case Manager Manual).Warden Campbell avers that on April 5, 2017, he denied Plaintiff's request to be assigned to work release due to public safety concerns arising from the heinous nature of Plaintiff's offense which included his beating the victim in the head with a claw hammer and stabbing the victim with an 8 inch blade.ECFNo. 16-2, ¶ 4(Campbell Decl.).Greene confirms that on April 3, 2017, Case Management staff recommended Plaintiff for work release, but that upon review and at the recommendation of Supervisor Aaron Anakaraonye, Warden Campbell denied Plaintiff work release status.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 12.Plaintiff questions why the issue of public safety became a concern at this time when he had been assigned to the same position for 15 months with apparently no concern for risk to public safety.ECF No. 21, p.2.He notes that other inmates with serious convictions have been approved for work release at this location.Id.

B.Access to Courts Claims

Additionally, Plaintiff states that at the time he was attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding the number of credits he earned, there was no law library at DRCF and therefore he was unable to research the Code of Maryland Regulations.ECF No. 6;ECF No. 21, p. 3.Plaintiff states that while there is now a library at DRCF, the legal portion of the library "lacks any available material to assist inmates in accessing the courts."Id.He states that the Code of Maryland Regulations provided is used and from 2011 with "half the pages[] missing."Id.Plaintiff further claims that Division of Correction Directives(DCD) are provided on disks but that there are no working computers so that they are unusable.He also claims that the lack of working computers prevents inmates from researching case law and denies them the ability to use the Legal Assistance to State Institutions (LASI) forms.Id.

Defendant offers that the DRCF library is open to inmates twice a week, once during the day and once in the evening.ECFNo. 16-4, ¶ 2.(Schwabeland Decl.);ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 14.Greene and Schwabeland, School Principal for DRCF Education Department, each aver that pursuant to Division of Correction Library Policy, DRCF, a pre-release facility, is not required to maintain reference materials onsite.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 15;ECFNo. 16-4, ¶ 2.Inmates at DRCF who wish to access legal reference materials may complete a request form using LASI program.Id.Greene and Schwabeland aver that DRCF has no record of any LASI request submitted by Plaintiff.Id.

Plaintiff states that Warden Campbell did not answer his administrative remedy procedure (ARP) complaint until after he filed the instant complaint.ECF No. 6, p. 8.Plaintiff alleges that"the Inmate Grievance Office(IGO) denied his appeal because [. . .] of improper paperwork."Id.He states that he filed the ARP paperwork provided to him by DRCF and the dismissal demonstrates DRCF's lack of concern for the Constitution which Plaintiff maintains provides inmates the right to file grievances and have access to the courts.Id.He complains that the IGO did not address his claims but rather issued a blanket denial due to DRCF providing the improper paperwork.Id.

Greene avers that prior to Plaintiff's filing of this case on January 5, 2017, Plaintiff had filed only one ARP while housed at DRCF.ECFNo. 16-3, ¶ 16;ECFNo. 16-3, pp. 11—22(ARP 0182-16 DCRF).The ARP concerned the awarding of work credits.ECFNo. 16-3, p. 11-22.The ARP was denied by the Warden (id., p. 23) and Plaintiff appealed to the IGO in a letter dated December 29, 2016(the same date as the complaint in this case).ECFNo. 16-5, ¶ 3.a;ECFNo. 16-5, pp. 3-19(IGO records).The complaint was filed with the IGO on January 5, 2017.Id.The IGO issued its decision on February 21, 2017, dismissing the grievance for failure to state a claim upon which administrative relief could be granted.ECFNo. 16-5, ¶ 3.a;ECFNo. 16-5, pp. 20-21.

On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a letter with the IGO that was received on February 28, 2017, referencing an appeal from the disposition of an unidentified ARP regarding legal mail.ECFNo. 16-5, ¶3.b;ECFNo. 16-5, p. 22-23.On July 11, 2017, the IGO directed Plaintiff to submit additional information within 30 days or risk dismissal of the complaint.Id.As of August 15, 2017, Plaintiff had failed to submit the requested information.Id.

C.Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered retaliation.ECF No. 6, p. 9.Plaintiff states that outgoing legal mail was opened by the staff at DRCF.Id.;ECF No. 11.Plaintiff states that hefiled an ARP regarding this issue but heard nothing from Warden Campbell other than that an investigation was being conducted.Id.

Russell Neverdon, Executive Director of the IGO avers that Plaintiff's February 13, 2017, letter to the IGO was received by the IGO on February 28, 2017, and considered filed March 2, 2017.ECFNo. 16-5, ¶ 3.b, ECFNo. 16-5, pp. 22-48.As of the filing of Defendant's dispositive motion the matter was pending before the IGO awaiting Plaintiff's submission of additional information the IGO requested from Plaintiff on July 11, 2017.Id.

Plaintiff also alleges that he received a rebate from an approved vendor which the finance office took 62 days to credit to Plaintiff's account.ECF No. 6, p. 11.He states that time frame is unreasonable and evidence of the retaliation he suffered.Id.Plaintiff indicates that the check was dated January 5, 2017, the envelope postmarked January 10, 2017, and he received the check stub January 11, 2017.ECF No. 21, p. 3.The receipt from finance at DRCF was not dated until March 7, 2017.³Id.Greene indicates that the...